IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v306y2022ics0277953622004257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market access for medicines treating rare diseases: Association between specialised processes for orphan medicines and funding recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Fontrier, Anna-Maria

Abstract

Access to medicines treating rare diseases (‘orphan medicines’) has proven challenging due to high prices and clinical uncertainty. To optimise market access to these medicines, some healthcare systems are implementing specialised pathways and/or processes during marketing authorisation (MA) and/or health technology assessment (HTA). Comparing one setting where these medicines are classed as “orphan” (Scotland) to another where they considered “non-orphan” (Canada), this study aims to explore whether the presence of specialised pathways and processes at MA and HTA levels is associated with more favourable funding recommendations and faster time to market access. A matched sample of 116 medicine-indication pairs with MA approval from 2001 to 2019 in Europe and Canada was identified, and publicly available sources were used for data extraction. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. All medicines were commercially marketed in both countries, except one instance in Scotland. In Scotland, more orphan medicines (68.1%) had a favourable HTA recommendation than in Canada (60.4%), while Canada issued more negative HTA recommendations (20.7%) than Scotland (15.5%). Low levels of agreement on HTA recommendations and the main reasons driving recommendations were found between settings. In both countries, medicines with specialised MA approval were less likely to receive negative HTA recommendations than medicines with standard MA. Time to market access was faster in Canada than Scotland, though medicines with specialised MA approval had slower timelines than medicines with standard MA approval in both countries. However, it is unclear whether the presence of orphan designation and HTA specialised processes alone could result in favourable funding recommendations without accounting for other healthcare system-related factors and differences in the decision-making processes across settings. Holistic approaches and better alignment of evidentiary requirements across regulators are needed to optimise access to orphan medicines.

Suggested Citation

  • Fontrier, Anna-Maria, 2022. "Market access for medicines treating rare diseases: Association between specialised processes for orphan medicines and funding recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:306:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622004257
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622004257
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115119?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    2. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz;Martina Garau, 2009. "Access Mechanisms for Orphan Drugs: A Comparative Study of Selected European Countries," Briefing 000227, Office of Health Economics.
    3. Todd Gammie & Christine Y Lu & Zaheer Ud-Din Babar, 2015. "Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11177 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Albane Degrassat-Théas & Pascal Paubel & Olivier Parent de Curzon & Claude Le Pen & Martine Sinègre, 2013. "Temporary Authorization for Use: Does the French Patient Access Programme for Unlicensed Medicines Impact Market Access After Formal Licensing?," Post-Print hal-01507543, HAL.
    6. Aidan Hollis, "undated". "Orphan drug pricing and costs," Working Papers 2019-05, Department of Economics, University of Calgary.
    7. Steven Simoens & Eline Picavet & Marc Dooms & David Cassiman & Thomas Morel, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Orphan Drugs," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-3, February.
    8. Matthew Herder, 2017. "What Is the Purpose of the Orphan Drug Act?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-4, January.
    9. Albane Degrassat-Théas & Pascal Paubel & Olivier Parent de Curzon & Claude Pen & Martine Sinègre, 2013. "Temporary Authorization for Use: Does the French Patient Access Programme for Unlicensed Medicines Impact Market Access After Formal Licensing?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 335-343, April.
    10. Karen M. Facey & Jaime Espin & Emma Kent & Angèl Link & Elena Nicod & Aisling O’Leary & Entela Xoxi & Inneke Vijver & Anna Zaremba & Tatyana Benisheva & Andrius Vagoras & Sheela Upadhyaya, 2021. "Implementing Outcomes-Based Managed Entry Agreements for Rare Disease Treatments: Nusinersen and Tisagenlecleucel," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(9), pages 1021-1044, September.
    11. Eline Picavet & Marc Dooms & David Cassiman & Steven Simoens, 2011. "Drugs for rare diseases: Influence of orphan designation status on price," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 275-279, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fontrier, Anna-Maria & Kamphuis, Bregtje W. & Kanavos, Panos, 2023. "How can health technology assessment be improved to optimise access to medicines? Results from a Delphi study in Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120537, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mills, Mackenzie & Kanavos, Panos, 2022. "How do HTA agencies perceive conditional approval of medicines? Evidence from England, Scotland, France and Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(11), pages 1130-1143.
    2. Melanie Büssgen & Tom Stargardt, 2023. "Does health technology assessment compromise access to pharmaceuticals?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 437-451, April.
    3. Nicholas Bagley & Benjamin Berger & Amitabh Chandra & Craig Garthwaite & Ariel D. Stern, 2018. "The Orphan Drug Act at 35: Observations and an Outlook for the Twenty-First Century," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 19, pages 97-137, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Degtiar, Irina, 2017. "A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1240-1248.
    5. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    6. Gamba, Simona & Magazzini, Laura & Pertile, Paolo, 2021. "R&D and market size: Who benefits from orphan drug legislation?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    7. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    8. Jason C Hsu & Huai-Chueh Wu & Wen-Chia Feng & Chih-Ho Chou & Edward Chia-Cheng Lai & Christine Y Lu, 2018. "Disease and economic burden for rare diseases in Taiwan: A longitudinal study using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Denis, Alain & Mergaert, Lut & Fostier, Christel & Cleemput, Irina & Simoens, Steven, 2010. "A comparative study of European rare disease and orphan drug markets," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 173-179, October.
    10. Anna-Maria Fontrier & Bregtje Kamphuis & Panos Kanavos, 2024. "How can health technology assessment be improved to optimise access to medicines? Results from a Delphi study in Europe," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 935-950, August.
    11. Michael Drummond & Adrian Towse, 2014. "Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 335-340, May.
    12. Shiwei Gong & Dehe Li & Dong Dong, 2020. "How Do Patients and Doctors Perceive Medical Services for Rare Diseases Differently in China? Insights from Two National Surveys," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Andrew Lloyd & Lisa A. Prosser & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Assessing the Appropriateness of the EQ-5D for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Patient-Centered Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 209-221, February.
    14. Riswandy Wasir & Sylvi Irawati & Amr Makady & Maarten Postma & Wim Goettsch & Erik Buskens & Talitha Feenstra, 2019. "Use of medicine pricing and reimbursement policies for universal health coverage in Indonesia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-19, February.
    15. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    16. Dyfrig A Hughes & Jannine Poletti-Hughes, 2016. "Profitability and Market Value of Orphan Drug Companies: A Retrospective, Propensity-Matched Case-Control Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    17. Marcelien H. E. Callenbach & Rick A. Vreman & Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G. Goettsch, 2022. "When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations—Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Samira Guennif, 2022. "Capture and passive predation in times of COVID-19 pandemic," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 163-186, December.
    19. Erik Landfeldt & Josefin Edström & Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno & Baziel G. M. Engelen & Janbernd Kirschner & Hanns Lochmüller, 2019. "Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Adult-Onset Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(4), pages 365-373, August.
    20. Fumio Teramae & Tomohiro Makino & Yeongjoo Lim & Shintaro Sengoku & Kota Kodama, 2020. "Impact of Research and Development Strategy on Sustainable Growth in Multinational Pharmaceutical Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-15, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:306:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622004257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.